Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 160 posts

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#121

Post by dahfizz »

Aperocky wrote: post #100
umvi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many believe internet access is a basic human right. [1] Thus, many believe that pulling out of a country where your device is one of the sole affordable ways of reaching the internet is tantamount to a human rights violation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

I stand with Google in this case. What if google goes down tomorrow? Is your human rights violated?

The deterioration of the term "human right" really makes me sad for the future.

A human right is something to kill and die for. If someone breaks into your home, you ought to defend yourself. If a government is censoring you, you are justified in civil war to defend your rights.

But now "human rights" are political speech for "something I want". I want free housing and medical care and internet access, so those things must be human rights.

And to be clear, those are great things. Being able to provide medical care to people is wonderful. But that does not make it a human right.

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#122

Post by toraobo »

netwanderer3 wrote: post #118

On paper, this is not really wrong. You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want to. Similarly, I just don't have the rights in forcing you to sell your house to me. I'm sure services like Netflix or Disney Plus are probably still not available in some countries. If you visit their website from those places, you would likely get a service denial message. It's within Google's rights to o…

> You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want to.

Yes you can, for example in cases of racial segregation.

But this refusal seems to be based on anti-trust regulation and it seems that Turkey won't be able to further penalize Google for this. People seem to be upset that a company can refuse to comply with the law and showing a sovereign government the finger.

But there is even a precedent for this: Google also refused to cooperate with Chinese search censorship and retreated from that market.

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#123

Post by alistairSH »

lucb1e wrote: post #119
netwanderer3 wrote: post #118

On paper, this is not really wrong. You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want to. Similarly, I just don't have the rights in forcing you to sell your house to me. I'm sure services like Netflix or Disney Plus are probably still not available in some countries. If you visit their website from those places, you would likely get a service denial message. It's within Google's rights to o…

> You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want to. The very first article of the Dutch constitution actually says that people have to be treated equally in equal cases. If you live in a country with a similar principle, do you know how this works with someone refusing to do business with you? If they sell to your peer, wouldn't they have to have a reason for not selling to you (i.e. to…

In the US, our laws don't provide blanket protection, as it appears they do in the Netherlands. We do protect certain classes of people in some circumstances. Generally, these classes are race, religion, national origin, age, sex, and disability. There are a few others, depending on which state and what circumstances.

This leads us to (IMO) ridiculous legal cases where a baker refuses to serve a gay couple, or a toy store with Christian owners refuses to abide by some employment laws.

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#124

Post by jacquesm »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #87
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and the US is shockingly close to being one.

How? Genuine question. Is it because Trump? Because while Trump and many of his supporters may be authoritarian, he was still duly elected, and if he had lost, Hillary would be President. In a dictatorship, Obama would have chosen his successor (generally).

Let's wait for the next election before we call this one.

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#125

Post by pdonis »

lucb1e wrote: post #119
netwanderer3 wrote: post #118

On paper, this is not really wrong. You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want to. Similarly, I just don't have the rights in forcing you to sell your house to me. I'm sure services like Netflix or Disney Plus are probably still not available in some countries. If you visit their website from those places, you would likely get a service denial message. It's within Google's rights to o…

> You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want to. The very first article of the Dutch constitution actually says that people have to be treated equally in equal cases. If you live in a country with a similar principle, do you know how this works with someone refusing to do business with you? If they sell to your peer, wouldn't they have to have a reason for not selling to you (i.e. to…

> The very first article of the Dutch constitution actually says that people have to be treated equally in equal cases.

Is that supposed to apply to the Dutch government? Or to everyone? Constitutions normally say what the government can and can't do; they don't normally directly tell ordinary citizens what they can and can't do.

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#126

Post by pdonis »

La1n wrote: post #104
dahfizz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't have armies and police forces. It can't "force" anyone to do anything, unlike governments. Deciding not to provide its services is not a use of force from google.

Google has a lot of influence in what people see and read. In that way the definitely have a lot of power. "Force" doesn't have to be military, soft power[1] is very much able to change policy, culture and views of people, and google holds more than a lot nation states. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

> Google has a lot of influence in what people see and read.

Google only has as much influence as individual users of their services give it.

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#127

Post by pdonis »

rjmunro wrote: post #105
throwaway0237 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both Android and Chrome need to be spun out--at this point they are basically public utilities. And then what: future development paid for by taxes, done by public servants who can't be fired? A House Committee on Chrome's WhatWG standards compliance?

Public servants normally can be fired by elected officials. Elected officials can be "fired" by the people, albeit only once every 4 years. Perhaps spun into some sort of not-for-profit, like Firefox. It's a difficult problem. Most options seem bad, but the current situation is bad too.

> Public servants normally can be fired by elected officials.

No, they can't. There are extensive laws, rules, and regulations that prevent elected officials from firing government employees arbitrarily.

> Elected officials can be "fired" by the people, albeit only once every 4 years.

Every 2 years for the House of Representatives, every 6 years for Senators. But that almost never happens; the US Congress has incumbent re-election rates well above 90 percent. US Presidents are limited to two terms, so every so often we are forced to choose a new one.

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#128

Post by moduspol »

steelframe wrote: post #82

Ah, it's so nice to have my morning coffee with my daily fresh anti-Google story on the front page of Hacker News. Our lives just wouldn't be the same without it.

After the anti-Google story, I like to then move on to the story that paints any interaction with a corporation that is not completely anonymous as bona-fide evidence that we're a half-step away from a corporate-controlled surveillance state.

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#129

Post by mrkstu »

sercand wrote: post #88
mrkstu wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turkey can if Google wants to do business in Turkey- if it isn't a legal business entity in Turkey, then no, not really.

Google has a legal business entity in Turkey.

For now- but if Turkey gets snippy back w/Google and tries to force the issue, that entity will simply cease to exist.

Re: Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy

#130

Post by BurningFrog »

goatinaboat wrote: post #95
BurningFrog wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is also pro competition, I don't mind if a peaceful actor like Google is able to compete in some sense with an oppressive warring state like Turkey. Yeah, I'm being provocative. But think about it.

a peaceful actor like Google is able to compete in some sense with an oppressive warring state like Turkey. What if it were more profitable for Google to side with the oppressive regime? A trick question because we all already know what the answer is.

You're saying if Google is powerful, it might do something bad.

That's of course true, but it's also true of Turkey.

To me, having many actors with limited power is better than having a few with lot of power.

Post reply on HN